Bloomberg: Plainly prepping to again play with a pointless presidential run.

Here we go again: The 2010 midterm elections are barely a month old, but chatter’s already surfacing about a possible Mike Bloomberg presidential bid, just as after the 2006 midterms. A week from Monday, we get the launch of a new “centrist” group that could evolve into a third party that would be perfect for Hizzoner to represent.

If it all takes root, get set for a campaign to pull the wool over Americans’ eyes — while New York City, perhaps, rots from neglect.

So far, Bloomberg swears (cross his heart!) he won’t run. But: 1) One guy who reportedly played a role in assembling the group’s leaders was Mike’s political gofer, Kevin Sheekey — a key force behind the mayor’s last presidential flirtation. 2) Its rhetoric sounds uncannily like Hizzoner’s. And 3) He was invited to Monday’s launch.

The group calls itself “No Labels,” but “No Purpose” might be better– because, other than as a platform for Mike, it offers no reason whatsoever to exist.

Scour nolabels.org and just try to spot a rationale. You can’t.

Its “Statement of Purpose”? A litany of domestic challenges plus several paragraphs of gibberish: “Most Americans in the vital center want . . . a political system that works,” it boldly asserts — one that “makes the necessary choices to . . . put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.”

A key goal? “Helping our nation remain true to these values that we all profess in an environment which encourages fact-based discussions.”

Yes, the group has a strong view of what it calls “hyperpartisanship,” which is “destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.” We’re supposed to buy No Labels as a response to “extremism” on the left and right — presumably, the Tea Party movement and groups like MoveOn.

No Labels vows to “restore the political center.” But is the center moribund — or just further to the right than where the No Labelers would like? Americans this year didn’t oust moderates in favor of an equal number of far right-wingers and far left-wingers; they booted Democrats, and some moderate Republicans — and welcomed conservatives. Independents, notably, broke 56 percent to 37 percent for the GOP, ABCNews reports.

Nor, by the way, are the Tea Partiers a handful of right-wing radicals. They include a broad swath of mainstream Americans frightened by the left’s agenda: ObamaCare, ever-bigger government, massive debt, taxes.

And they don’t want everyone to simply “come together” and split the baby — cut some spending here, raise some taxes there — as Bloomberg and No Labels might suggest.

Now compare the group’s rhetorical mush with Mike’s after 2006: “The politics of partisanship,” he said then, “have paralyzed decision-making . . . and the big issues of the day are not being addressed.”

Yeah, blame partisanship. Never mind what voters actually think.

Of course, this “third way” nonsense is mere packaging. Be honest, Mike: Like every other pol, you’ve got an ideology.

A life-long Democrat until 2001, Bloomberg is a clear liberal. He says the public “always wants more government services.” He’s kept city taxes high. He wants to force folks to live as he sees fit, avoiding salt, fat, sugar, tobacco, alcohol, guns — and cars. He insists global-warming science “has been settled” and that America must go green. He backs abortion rights, gay marriage and the Ground Zero mosque.

Bloomberg, beyond politics? Please.

The mayor can maintain plausible deniability about a presidential bid for another year or so, even as Sheekey and the No Ideas group lay groundwork. But Mike’s mind already seems elsewhere.

His current job’s certainly less fun these days. Bloomberg’s signature legacy item, winning control of the schools, took a major hit last month when he let the state tinker with the school system’s top brass. His recent budget update addressed less than half of a $4.5 billion budget gap, and future-year gaps are even bigger.

The mayor has a right to ponder life after City Hall. But if he focuses too much on a (make-believe) presidential bid, he may squander whatever good he’s done for the city in the meantime (and still lose the White House).

Better he does himself, and New Yorkers, a favor — and keeps his eye on the city.